This paper introduces Probabilistic Deduction (PD) as an approach to probabilistic structured argumentation. A PD framework is composed of probabilistic rules (p-rules). As rules in classical structured argumentation frameworks, p-rules form deduction systems. In addition, p-rules also represent conditional probabilities that define joint probability distributions. With PD frameworks, one performs probabilistic reasoning by solving Rule-Probabilistic Satisfiability. At the same time, one can obtain an argumentative reading to the probabilistic reasoning with arguments and attacks. In this work, we introduce a probabilistic version of the Closed-World Assumption (P-CWA) and prove that our probabilistic approach coincides with the complete extension in classical argumentation under P-CWA and with maximum entropy reasoning. We present several approaches to compute the joint probability distribution from p-rules for achieving a practical proof theory for PD. PD provides a framework to unify probabilistic reasoning with argumentative reasoning. This is the first work in probabilistic structured argumentation where the joint distribution is not assumed form external sources.

The advance of Machine Learning (ML) has led to a strong interest in this technology to support decision making. While complex ML models provide predictions that are often more accurate than those of traditional tools, such models often hide the reasoning behind the prediction from their users, which can lead to lower adoption and lack of insight. Motivated by this tension, research has put forth Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) techniques that uncover patterns discovered by ML. Despite the high hopes in both ML and XAI, there is little empirical evidence of the benefits to traditional businesses. To this end, we analyze data on 220,185 customers of an energy retailer, predict cross-purchases with up to 86 that the XAI method SHAP provides explanations that hold for actual buyers.

The advance of Machine Learning (ML) has led to a strong interest in this technology to support decision making. While complex ML models provide predictions that are often more accurate than those of traditional tools, such models often hide the reasoning behind the prediction from their users, which can lead to lower adoption and lack of insight. Motivated by this tension, research has put forth Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) techniques that uncover patterns discovered by ML. Despite the high hopes in both ML and XAI, there is little empirical evidence of the benefits to traditional businesses. To this end, we analyze data on 220,185 customers of an energy retailer, predict cross-purchases with up to 86% correctness (AUC), and show that the XAI method SHAP provides explanations that hold for actual buyers.

The sixth assessment of the international panel on climate change (IPCC) states that "cumulative net CO2 emissions over the last decade (2010-2019) are about the same size as the 11 remaining carbon budget likely to limit warming to 1.5C (medium confidence)." Such reports directly feed the public discourse, but nuances such as the degree of belief and of confidence are often lost. In this paper, we propose a formal account for allowing such degrees of belief and the associated confidence to be used to label arguments in abstract argumentation settings. Differently from other proposals in probabilistic argumentation, we focus on the task of probabilistic inference over a chosen query building upon Sato's distribution semantics which has been already shown to encompass a variety of cases including the semantics of Bayesian networks. Borrowing from the vast literature on such semantics, we examine how such tasks can be dealt with in practice when considering uncertain probabilities, and discuss the connections with existing proposals for probabilistic argumentation.

As machine learning and deep learning models have become highly prevalent in a multitude of domains, the main reservation in their adoption for decision-making processes is their black-box nature. The Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) paradigm has gained a lot of momentum lately due to its ability to reduce models opacity. XAI methods have not only increased stakeholders' trust in the decision process but also helped developers ensure its fairness. Recent efforts have been invested in creating transparent models and post-hoc explanations. However, fewer methods have been developed for time series data, and even less when it comes to multivariate datasets. In this work, we take advantage of the inherent interpretability of shapelets to develop a model agnostic multivariate time series (MTS) counterfactual explanation algorithm. Counterfactuals can have a tremendous impact on making black-box models explainable by indicating what changes have to be performed on the input to change the final decision. We test our approach on a real-life solar flare prediction dataset and prove that our approach produces high-quality counterfactuals. Moreover, a comparison to the only MTS counterfactual generation algorithm shows that, in addition to being visually interpretable, our explanations are superior in terms of proximity, sparsity, and plausibility.

If AI is to meet basic business-use, legal and ethical needs, it must be explainable. But current approaches to explainable AI are falling short. We set out how and why Causal AI generates a superior kind of explainability.

In attempts to "explain" predictions of machine learning models, researchers have proposed hundreds of techniques for attributing predictions to features that are deemed important. While these attributions are often claimed to hold the potential to improve human "understanding" of the models, surprisingly little work explicitly evaluates progress towards this aspiration. In this paper, we conduct a crowdsourcing study, where participants interact with deception detection models that have been trained to distinguish between genuine and fake hotel reviews. They are challenged both to simulate the model on fresh reviews, and to edit reviews with the goal of lowering the probability of the originally predicted class. Successful manipulations would lead to an adversarial example. During the training (but not the test) phase, input spans are highlighted to communicate salience. Through our evaluation, we observe that for a linear bag-of-words model, participants with access to the feature coefficients during training are able to cause a larger reduction in model confidence in the testing phase when compared to the no-explanation control. For the BERT-based classifier, popular local explanations do not improve their ability to reduce the model confidence over the no-explanation case. Remarkably, when the explanation for the BERT model is given by the (global) attributions of a linear model trained to imitate the BERT model, people can effectively manipulate the model.

Designing and implementing explainable systems is seen as the next step towards increasing user trust in, acceptance of and reliance on Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems. While explaining choices made by black-box algorithms such as machine learning and deep learning has occupied most of the limelight, systems that attempt to explain decisions (even simple ones) in the context of social choice are steadily catching up. In this paper, we provide a comprehensive survey of explainability in mechanism design, a domain characterized by economically motivated agents and often having no single choice that maximizes all individual utility functions. We discuss the main properties and goals of explainability in mechanism design, distinguishing them from those of Explainable AI in general. This discussion is followed by a thorough review of the challenges one may face when working on Explainable Mechanism Design and propose a few solution concepts to those.

A growing body of research runs human subject evaluations to study whether providing users with explanations of machine learning models can help them with practical real-world use cases. However, running user studies is challenging and costly, and consequently each study typically only evaluates a limited number of different settings, e.g., studies often only evaluate a few arbitrarily selected explanation methods. To address these challenges and aid user study design, we introduce Use-Case-Grounded Simulated Evaluations (SimEvals). SimEvals involve training algorithmic agents that take as input the information content (such as model explanations) that would be presented to each participant in a human subject study, to predict answers to the use case of interest. The algorithmic agent's test set accuracy provides a measure of the predictiveness of the information content for the downstream use case. We run a comprehensive evaluation on three real-world use cases (forward simulation, model debugging, and counterfactual reasoning) to demonstrate that SimEvals can effectively identify which explanation methods will help humans for each use case. These results provide evidence that SimEvals can be used to efficiently screen an important set of user study design decisions, e.g.

Interpretability has become an essential topic for artificial intelligence in some high-risk domains such as healthcare, bank and security. For commonly-used tabular data, traditional methods trained end-to-end machine learning models with numerical and categorical data only, and did not leverage human understandable knowledge such as data descriptions. Yet mining human-level knowledge from tabular data and using it for prediction remain a challenge. Therefore, we propose a concept and argumentation based model (CAM) that includes the following two components: a novel concept mining method to obtain human understandable concepts and their relations from both descriptions of features and the underlying data, and a quantitative argumentation-based method to do knowledge representation and reasoning. As a result of it, CAM provides decisions that are based on human-level knowledge and the reasoning process is intrinsically interpretable. Finally, to visualize the purposed interpretable model, we provide a dialogical explanation that contain dominated reasoning path within CAM. Experimental results on both open source benchmark dataset and real-word business dataset show that (1) CAM is transparent and interpretable, and the knowledge inside the CAM is coherent with human understanding; (2) Our interpretable approach can reach competitive results comparing with other state-of-art models.